Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:13 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:06 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:41 pm
You see men like you come and try to change...whatever it is you are trying to change with whatever cause, and there are alot.

Then men like me result, laughing and pointing saying "look it is a joke, everytime A manifests he creates -A...he is just running around in circles".

Hate to break it to you, but you cannot plan out life. You cannot put it in a sterile little algorythm.

What I like, and I think it fits you like a glove is the hypocrisy of your cause. I mean look at this conversation....hell look at the internet...computation helped speed up the war of all against all. Connection? Don't make me laugh.


You throw around the words "people" like some sort of catch all when all you have to do is look at the kids today: they spend more time on social media than with people, they are shooting and killing themselves more and more, and why? Because they feel isolated. And why do they feel isolated? Because they depend on your little square idol that creates a fortress around them rather than depending on "people".

Throw in the fact their families are dissolving because people work too much or not at all due to tech changes. Tech is how we see the world. It is rooted in the Greek for "art". And what is this "art"? Desolation and sterilization.

You create entertainment and distractions.

The great irony is that your programming just eliminates people and when people are eliminated the tech is useless.


Its self contradicting.
That's al eloquent and elaborate straw-man.

It is eloquent, something a computer cannot do...create :).

And straw man? Far from it, we are talking about God now aren't we?


My idol is power. Power over nature/death. Computation is just instruments to that end-goal.

I don't have any idols...I just do things...it is natural.

Everything humans do has ethical implications. Your main failing is to externalise blame to the tools, rather than point fingers at the real culprits - the choice-makers.

Oh no far from it, I just said above that technology is art. :)

We do what we can with the resources available at our disposal. Seems you gave given in to nihilism - naturally, it's the easy choice.

Technology just creates nihilism. I wouldn't call literally giving my coat off my back nihilism now would I? :)


You would be surprise what giving your favorite coat to someone who has nothing can do.

Program that.
If coat-giving is a virtue, I am significantly more virtuous than you.

My bank account allows for it ;) Money/wealth too is a great slave, but a terrible master.

To blame technology for nihilism is an abdication of your free will. All philosophical positions reduce down to choice.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9590
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Immanuel Can »

BlackChristianMind wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:25 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am
In the age of AI approachinf...what is a kid going to be taught but a reinterpretation of history?

What is he going to need math or biology for?

What is he going to even be needed for other than to act as a battery for the technocracy?
Indeed.

To this thread's creator,
Public school teaches students what to think and not to actually think....They have you so confused that you are not even asking the right questions. It isn't, "Should God be taught in school?" The question you should be asking yourself is why has God been so effectively hidden from you?
I can answer that, BCM.

The public school system is a monolithic institutional entity. In includes a wide variety of people of various ideological, cultural, religious and other stripes. The system's power depends on keeping all of these viewpoints suppressed, in favour of some minimum supposed "secular consensus" that doesn't require anybody to believe in anything in particular.

The education system doesn't perpetuate this because it's the truth. They perpetuate it because it's the most useful thing for the public school system to continue to operate free of conflict. Privately, many teachers, students and even institutional officials have religious, ideological or cultural beliefs of their own. And they do believe that what they believe is really true, in many cases. But public education, devoted as it is to all the public equally, actively discourages any truth-stand that might prove divisive or might fracture the system. About those things, teachers are simply forbidden to speak. So the system would rather lie to children in order to keep the peace than include any substantive ideological, religious or other facts within their mandate....though they know such facts exist, and insist on the right of everyone to hold them privately.

In short, they're happy to whistle while people go to Hell, just so the monolithic public system can continue to be the monolithic public system.

And that's the truth.
User avatar
Tesla
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Tesla »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:37 am
Tesla wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:30 am The class is designed to teach two truths. (1: their isn't any real info about 'God(s) 2: Human beings are gullible by default, but critical thinking skills can lesson damage) to get those 15 year olds attention should be as follows:
My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?
There is a fatalistic view with religious beings in which the future is irrelevant. Many religious want the world to fail because "God" said it would, and "god" will fix it. do you see the problem if that is wrong?
BlackChristianMind
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu May 23, 2019 3:40 am
Contact:

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by BlackChristianMind »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:09 am I can answer that, BCM.

The public school system is a monolithic institutional entity. In includes a wide variety of people of various ideological, cultural, religious and other stripes. The system's power depends on keeping all of these viewpoints suppressed, in favour of some minimum supposed "secular consensus" that doesn't require anybody to believe in anything in particular.

The education system doesn't perpetuate this because it's the truth. They perpetuate it because it's the most useful thing for the public school system to continue to operate free of conflict. Privately, many teachers, students and even institutional officials have religious, ideological or cultural beliefs of their own. And they do believe that what they believe is really true, in many cases. But public education, devoted as it is to all the public equally, actively discourages any truth-stand that might prove divisive or might fracture the system. About those things, teachers are simply forbidden to speak. So the system would rather lie to children in order to keep the peace than include any substantive ideological, religious or other facts within their mandate....though they know such facts exist, and insist on the right of everyone to hold them privately.

In short, they're happy to whistle while people go to Hell, just so the monolithic public system can continue to be the monolithic public system.

And that's the truth.
It is deliberate, carefully planned, and insidious so that the few can maintain power over the many.
seeds
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:49 am
[... ...]

While you, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that the parameters of the search must in no way include any thoughts or ideas that contain the slightest reference or allusion to any of the world’s religions.

Again, your self-limiting (blinkered) approach to the quest of “where do we look?” seems to stand in stark contrast to the stated purpose of your class.
Tesla wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:18 am Anyone who takes critical reading and writing classes learns to examine the authors. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. The writers of religious thought who wrote the bible are full of antiquities. Even the idea of the soul was an antiquity based on the idea that thoughts were independent of the body. As we now know, they are in the brain. The initial assumption was wrong, so all built on it is wrong...
You seem far too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, without a doubt, the world's religions are rife with mythological nonsense that must be discarded, but that does not mean that some of their core precepts do not hold some vital clues (i.e., puzzle pieces) regarding the truth of reality.
Tesla wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:18 am ...I say to look for an 'entity' that could be considered 'God(s) with scientific tools.
And what if an entity who is powerful and intelligent enough to create a hundred-billion+ galaxies of suns and planets out of the living mental fabric of its very own personal being, does not want to be found?

Do you actually believe that our “amoeba-ish” level of scientific tools could overcome such an obstacle?**

I know it was just speculation presented in the form of a thought experiment, but how many times do I have to point out to you the thoroughly plausible idea that the discovery of any definitive and irrefutable proof of the existence of God...

(and, by extension, the truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny)

...could possibly destroy the illusion of objective reality, and potentially put an end to humanity’s existence on this planet?

Furthermore, if you would actually pay attention to what the “tools of science” have already discovered, then you would realize that quantum physics has pretty-much unveiled the fact that physical matter is “mind-like” in nature.

And that’s because it (physical matter) appears to be constructed from a substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything “imaginable” (just like the substance that forms our thoughts and dreams).

So in that sense, science...

(not from a materialist’s point of view, but from a metaphysician’s point of view)

...is tentatively verifying idealism.

In which case, what do you suppose that might mean with respect to where we need to “look for God” (the alleged purpose of your class)?

**(I suggest that the presumption that you could find God by applying scientific tools to the phenomenal (material) features of the universe,...

...is the equivalent of thinking that you could find the “eye of your mind” by somehow isolating and focusing in on one of the phenomenal features of a dream you had last night.)

_______
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6290
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:13 am
Skepdick wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:06 am
That's al eloquent and elaborate straw-man.

It is eloquent, something a computer cannot do...create :).

And straw man? Far from it, we are talking about God now aren't we?


My idol is power. Power over nature/death. Computation is just instruments to that end-goal.

I don't have any idols...I just do things...it is natural.

Everything humans do has ethical implications. Your main failing is to externalise blame to the tools, rather than point fingers at the real culprits - the choice-makers.

Oh no far from it, I just said above that technology is art. :)

We do what we can with the resources available at our disposal. Seems you gave given in to nihilism - naturally, it's the easy choice.

Technology just creates nihilism. I wouldn't call literally giving my coat off my back nihilism now would I? :)


You would be surprise what giving your favorite coat to someone who has nothing can do.

Program that.
If coat-giving is a virtue, I am significantly more virtuous than you.

My bank account allows for it ;) Money/wealth too is a great slave, but a terrible master.

To blame technology for nihilism is an abdication of your free will. All philosophical positions reduce down to choice.
And yet you don't know how you make a choice...it is an assumed term nothing more or less. As a matter of fact it can equate to any and everything. Choice is perceptive by nature, as it is grounded in awareness.

No, I am blaming art with art being a perception. Technology is inevitable, but it is a product of how we view the world.

Modern computing, and industry that led up prior to it, is imbalanced with natural law. Natural law being the intrinsic cycles the universe, internally and externally of the individual, operate.

When technology replaces the human condition, specifically that of work, then by default a negation of free will occurs as people cannot exert it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9590
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Immanuel Can »

BlackChristianMind wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:35 am
In short, they're happy to whistle while people go to Hell, just so the monolithic public system can continue to be the monolithic public system.

And that's the truth.
It is deliberate, carefully planned, and insidious so that the few can maintain power over the many.
Systems are like that. They serve themselves, and whomever can seize control of them. And they have no moral compass, no sense of ethical duty, and no dedication to truth...only pragmatic concerns about what will let them keep their power. And they'll serve those concerns every time.

That's one of the things that makes big government and big collectives so dangerous: unlike individuals, they are essentially without conscience, because individual consciences are submerged by the objectives of the collective.
BlackChristianMind
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu May 23, 2019 3:40 am
Contact:

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by BlackChristianMind »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:25 am
BlackChristianMind wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:35 am
In short, they're happy to whistle while people go to Hell, just so the monolithic public system can continue to be the monolithic public system.

And that's the truth.
It is deliberate, carefully planned, and insidious so that the few can maintain power over the many.
Systems are like that. They serve themselves, and whomever can seize control of them. And they have no moral compass, no sense of ethical duty, and no dedication to truth...only pragmatic concerns about what will let them keep their power. And they'll serve those concerns every time.

That's one of the things that makes big government and big collectives so dangerous: unlike individuals, they are essentially without conscience, because individual consciences are submerged by the objectives of the collective.
A "system" is not alive and cannot "serve itself." Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that you're anthropomorphizing it. I'm saying that the system was deliberately created, it didn't happen by chance. And those who created it have not given up their power over it.
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Skepdick »

Tesla wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:09 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:37 am
Tesla wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:30 am The class is designed to teach two truths. (1: their isn't any real info about 'God(s) 2: Human beings are gullible by default, but critical thinking skills can lesson damage) to get those 15 year olds attention should be as follows:
My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?
There is a fatalistic view with religious beings in which the future is irrelevant. Many religious want the world to fail because "God" said it would, and "god" will fix it. do you see the problem if that is wrong?
This is a non-sequitur.

The future is not irrelevant, but it is pre-determined. Not precisely (obviously) but the heat death of the universe is what awaits at the end of the line. The problems associated with the arrow of time are obvious.

You are no closer to answering my question: Why should I care about any of it? Why not nihilism?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6290
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:50 am
Tesla wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:09 am
Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:37 am
My skeptical-agnostic would immediately derail your classroom with:

Why should I even care about information OR disinformation?

So what if God exists or doesn't?
So what if the Earth is flat or round?
So what if the climate is changing or isn't?
So what if I have free will or I don't?

How do any of these distinctions help me or anyone in practice?
There is a fatalistic view with religious beings in which the future is irrelevant. Many religious want the world to fail because "God" said it would, and "god" will fix it. do you see the problem if that is wrong?
This is a non-sequitur.

The future is not irrelevant, but it is pre-determined. Not precisely (obviously) but the heat death of the universe is what awaits at the end of the line. The problems associated with the arrow of time are obvious.

You are no closer to answering my question: Why should I care about any of it? Why not nihilism?
True nihilism negates itself resulting in meaning from nothing. One could not distinguish true nihilism from a compassionate saint, an artist who gives everything, or a heroic warrior in combat.

The nihilists today are not true nihilists. Dually those who pushing "meaning" today I would argue as equally fake in a different respect.

True nihilism makes the word nihilism mean nothing. This prior statement is a contradiction.
Skepdick
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:50 pm True nihilism negates itself resulting in meaning from nothing. One could not distinguish true nihilism from a compassionate saint, an artist who gives everything, or a heroic warrior in combat.

The nihilists today are not true nihilists. Dually those who pushing "meaning" today I would argue as equally fake in a different respect.

True nihilism makes the word nihilism mean nothing. This prior statement is a contradiction.
If you interpret the world from the perspective of Albert Camus:

The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.

Then, indeed, a living nihilist is a performative contradiction.

To add a sense of irony, contrast Camus to Nietzsche - for having such drastically different world-views, their conclusions are rather confluent...

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. --Nietzsche
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9590
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Immanuel Can »

BlackChristianMind wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:24 am A "system" is not alive and cannot "serve itself." Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that you're anthropomorphizing it.
No, I'm not doing that at all.

A system is an impersonal entity that people create by collectivizing; but once it has been created, it generates its own rationale for legitimacy, and serves its own needs. It begins to run like a big, brainless, soulless "person" with it's own goals and interests, that may not have anything to do with why the thing got started in the first place.

Let me give you a simple example: a football team. Now, the Chicago Bears, or the Bolton Wanderers in the UK, are started by someone, and are composed of individual people, but these individuals are aggregated for the particular purpose of putting a ball game on the field. But notice that all the parts are interchangeable; one goes out, another comes in, but the team goes on. Moreover, the focus of the Bears or Wanderers is not the well-being of any particular member...it's things like the sustaining of football operations, the increasing of fan base, the inflow of cash, the promotion of the team, the winning of championships, and so on.

Now, one day, when all the people currently involved in Chicago or Bolton are dead, the teams will go on. They will continue to run for purposes intrinsic to the organization, rather than for the particular interests of any individual in the organization. Even the owner will die one day, and his team will be passed on or sold off to someone else, then continue as if nothing has happened. In that sense, the Chicago Bears and the Bolton Wanderers organizations have a life of their own that transcends all individual persons, and all circumstances and times. The goal of the organization is its own perpetuation, not the welfare of the individuals with the organization, which the organization tends to treat as merely means to that end.

Public school systems are like that. They exist to be public school systems, not to serve the needs of any particular people.
I'm saying that the system was deliberately created, it didn't happen by chance. And those who created it have not given up their power over it.
The problem with that idea is that the people who created the public school system did so well over a century and a half ago, by nearest account. In fact, if we're talking about the modern public school, the people who invented it were in England, during the Industrial Revolution, and were evangelicals who started what they called "Sunday Schools" in order to educate the unruly children of the urban poor in matters of literacy and Biblical knowledge.

That's a far cry from what public schooling is today. And the people who began the original idea are clearly no longer calling the shots.

They're all dead. And the mandate for which the public school system came into being has changed very radically during the last couple of centuries. But you'll never find out any particular group of "conspirators" you can blame for it; there are only the people who are controlling it right now, today -- but they aren't the same people, or even the same kinds of people, as controlled it in the mid 1800s, or will control it in a few years from now. Somebody will be manipulating it, no doubt; but we don't know who that will be.

Meanwhile, that monolithic entity called "the public school system" will continue to chug right along, doing what it does -- absorbing as many people as it can absorb, keeping them all from fighting, serving the interests of the politicians and legislators who use it to advance themselves, and subduing the unruly masses to the service of the latest ideology. The system won't care what that ideology is, either...if it allows the system to grow bigger, or to extend its influence, it will allow it. Because the system has no brain, and does not "know" or "care" about the moral, ethical or ideological content of its teaching...it just self-perpetuates.
BlackChristianMind
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu May 23, 2019 3:40 am
Contact:

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by BlackChristianMind »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:18 pm
BlackChristianMind wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:24 am A "system" is not alive and cannot "serve itself." Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that you're anthropomorphizing it.
No, I'm not doing that at all.

A system is an impersonal entity that people create by collectivizing; but once it has been created, it generates its own rationale for legitimacy, and serves its own needs. It begins to run like a big, brainless, soulless "person" with it's own goals and interests, that may not have anything to do with why the thing got started in the first place.

Let me give you a simple example: a football team. Now, the Chicago Bears, or the Bolton Wanderers in the UK, are started by someone, and are composed of individual people, but these individuals are aggregated for the particular purpose of putting a ball game on the field. But notice that all the parts are interchangeable; one goes out, another comes in, but the team goes on. Moreover, the focus of the Bears or Wanderers is not the well-being of any particular member...it's things like the sustaining of football operations, the increasing of fan base, the inflow of cash, the promotion of the team, the winning of championships, and so on.

Now, one day, when all the people currently involved in Chicago or Bolton are dead, the teams will go on. They will continue to run for purposes intrinsic to the organization, rather than for the particular interests of any individual in the organization. Even the owner will die one day, and his team will be passed on or sold off to someone else, then continue as if nothing has happened. In that sense, the Chicago Bears and the Bolton Wanderers organizations have a life of their own that transcends all individual persons, and all circumstances and times. The goal of the organization is its own perpetuation, not the welfare of the individuals with the organization, which the organization tends to treat as merely means to that end.

Public school systems are like that. They exist to be public school systems, not to serve the needs of any particular people.
I'm saying that the system was deliberately created, it didn't happen by chance. And those who created it have not given up their power over it.
The problem with that idea is that the people who created the public school system did so well over a century and a half ago, by nearest account. In fact, if we're talking about the modern public school, the people who invented it were in England, during the Industrial Revolution, and were evangelicals who started what they called "Sunday Schools" in order to educate the unruly children of the urban poor in matters of literacy and Biblical knowledge.

That's a far cry from what public schooling is today. And the people who began the original idea are clearly no longer calling the shots.

They're all dead. And the mandate for which the public school system came into being has changed very radically during the last couple of centuries. But you'll never find out any particular group of "conspirators" you can blame for it; there are only the people who are controlling it right now, today -- but they aren't the same people, or even the same kinds of people, as controlled it in the mid 1800s, or will control it in a few years from now. Somebody will be manipulating it, no doubt; but we don't know who that will be.

Meanwhile, that monolithic entity called "the public school system" will continue to chug right along, doing what it does -- absorbing as many people as it can absorb, keeping them all from fighting, serving the interests of the politicians and legislators who use it to advance themselves, and subduing the unruly masses to the service of the latest ideology. The system won't care what that ideology is, either...if it allows the system to grow bigger, or to extend its influence, it will allow it. Because the system has no brain, and does not "know" or "care" about the moral, ethical or ideological content of its teaching...it just self-perpetuates.
What I meant was that there are ruling families. Schools teach that if we work hard enough, are cunning enough, smart enough, fast enough, etc. we can rise to the top. But there are actually ruling families that remain in power through, for example, murder, wars, and owning or stealth-owning the major media companies to pump out a steady flow of disinformation. And it doesn't stop at television and radio, it is also embedded in the school systems and colleges. The only "systems" that they don't bother are the ones that are already operating according to their agenda. Research the Rothschilds, for example.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9590
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Immanuel Can »

BlackChristianMind wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:45 pm What I meant was that there are ruling families.
No, certainly in the public system, there are not.

I'm familiar with the old conspiracy theories about politics generally -- the Rothschilds and whatnot. But I think they're really inapplicable, at least directly, when it comes to public education. Public education is its own thing. No one person runs it, nor even any group of people. It's been dominated by different interest groups throughout its long history, and it favours none of them in particular. It's just a self-perpetuation machine, lacking any specific agenda, ideology or morality of its own since it was detached from its original roots.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6290
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:50 pm True nihilism negates itself resulting in meaning from nothing. One could not distinguish true nihilism from a compassionate saint, an artist who gives everything, or a heroic warrior in combat.

The nihilists today are not true nihilists. Dually those who pushing "meaning" today I would argue as equally fake in a different respect.

True nihilism makes the word nihilism mean nothing. This prior statement is a contradiction.
If you interpret the world from the perspective of Albert Camus:

The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.

Then, indeed, a living nihilist is a performative contradiction.

To add a sense of irony, contrast Camus to Nietzsche - for having such drastically different world-views, their conclusions are rather confluent...

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. --Nietzsche
Interpreting from a perspective of camus, is perspectivism and that is a Neizchian point of view. But this perspectivism, as converging and diverging forms is platonic, but this is a tautological nature and we are left with Wittgensteins observations. But this tautological nature observes one and many are we are left with parmenides and the atomists.

Throwing a label on in results in a series of paradoxes.
Post Reply